This follows on from yesterday’s post.
But something happened around new year 2011…
The Tory right, previously marginalised and outweighed by the Lib Dems, somehow forced their way back into the story. Whereas previously it was clear that the Cameron-Clegg axis was running the show, it became increasingly clear that the Hague-Osborne axis was the conduit for the will of the Tory right. The Tory right became petrified that AV would lead to perpetually bland “One Nation” Tory policies and prevent a Thatcherite party winning power alone again. (They were right, of course).
But whereas Cameron had previously gone on without the Tory right, for some reason in the New Year he changed his mind. So, as the elections brewed he condoned a giant campaign by the Tories behind NO2AV to destroy his Deputy and the Lib Dems generally, knowing full well that this would lead to their slaughter at the polls. He would also break his agreement not to become directly involved in the issue and storm into the AV debate like a juggernaut, and in repeated fierce interventions he carried NO to an absolutely massive victory, killing electoral reform in the country for a generation. (Is it a rule that Prime Ministers must always break agreements they make with their number two?)
As some have pointed out, this was unnecessary, as it looked like AV was going to be narrowly defeated anyway. But… lined up behind him were the Labour tribalists and the Tory right, both of who despise the Lib Dems with a vengeance, detest multi-party politics and plurality, and desire nothing – nothing at all – more than a hasty return to the 2-party pendulum that guarantees absolute Tory power 2/3 of the time and Labour power for 1/3 of the time. In the minds of these people (Reid, Blunkett, Hague, etc) the Lib Dems, hung parliaments, pluralism, compromise, are all essentially symptoms of the same thing and could all be destroyed in a single campaign of vilification of all things Lib Dem.
A remarkable plan, fantastically executed, and as we see, incredibly successful. The Tory right and the Labour tribalists emerged victorious… or at least the Labour tribalists would have done if Labour’s strategy of spending a year attacking all things Lib Dem hadn’t caused every Lib Dem in Scotland to vote SNP, leading to a truly remarkable landslide for Alec Salmond. Now the Labour tribalists are faced with having given the Tories an electoral system that could see them remain in power in an England-Wales only union for a generation. Oops.
So now the early Cameron-Clegg vision is in tatters, and will be buried without fanfare over the coming weeks. The future of the Coalition is no longer a vision of any kind, but merely a future of bitter marriage with the spouses staying together “for the sake of the kids” – i.e. to get the huge deficit under control. NHS reform is dead (which is good or bad, depending on whether you think the NHS is a perfect icon or desperately in need of massive restructuring), welfare reform and the Universal Credit now must look wobbly, which I think most people would agree is a great shame.
But there’s worse: the Tory right have their nails so far under Cameron’s skin now that he has said he will oppose House of Lords reform – despite it being in the Coalition agreement and of course in the 2010 Tory manifesto. There is at least some symmetry in most of Labour’s MPs opposing AV even though it was in their 2010 manifesto, and then most Tory MPs opposing Lords reform despite it being in theirs. And people say the Lib Dems put things in their manifesto just to win votes? Well, at least the Lib Dems really wanted to do those things like ending tuition fees, if only they had the power. Labour and now the Tories are both set to actively oppose the things they said they’d do, even though they do have the power to do them.
Cameron was elected as PM on a platform of reform, but now appears to be the leading knight for the status quo. The “forces of conservatism” as Blair once found, are at work already. As a devout coalitionista, House of Lords reform for me personally is a red line. If Cameron sinks it – as opposed to just pushing it into the future to avoid the AV fall-out – it’s time to accept that we have been betrayed by a cabal of crypto-Thatcherites with a hidden agenda. At that point I think we would need to seriously consider taking the party into opposition.
It’s not too late for Clegg and Cameron to turn this around, but the ball is mostly in Cameron’s court, and I no longer fully trust him. He will have seen what happened to Labour in Scotland when they have an inept leader at election time, and will be tempted by other options now. The coming months are crucial, and some cool-headedness at the top is required. Outbursts from Lib Dem Cabinet members are not helping cool the situation and should stop, but Cameron should be made very clear that we are now near breaking-point. I have my fingers crossed for Nick and the coalition.
Cllr Mark Wright is Cabinet member for Efficiency and Value for Money on Bristol City Council and was the GE candidate in Bristol South in 2010.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
20 Comments
I found this on the interweb :
http://www.webster.edu/medialiteracy/journal/FINALKARLROVE.pdf
Well worth a read. Even if you don’t think that is the type of campaigning the LibDems want to get into, the tactics described clear are very effective and are responsible for much of the pain the party is in now. The Tories and some parts of Labour are *very* happy using these techniques, so we need to have counters in place.
Lords reform wasn’t promised in the Coalition Agreement. The commitment only went as far as bring forward proposals, not preventing MPs or Lords from having a free vote on them: “We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation.”
Cameron wouldn’t be breaking the coalition agreement in allowing his party to oppose the plans, he wouldn’t even be breaking it if he were to oppose them himself. Proposals are there to be debated, thats what democracy entails.
How many times can you put “Labour” and “tribalists” in one piece and not see the irony that “Lib Dem” and “tribalists” also fit quite nicely too…
A lot of people have argued that AV/ PR would benefit the Left.
Under those circumstances, it would be surprising if anyone in the Conservative Party favoured it. Why would Cameron want it any more than his right wing?
Seems rather late to only now start to distrust Cameron a bit.
I do think that the full enormity of the consequences of the boundary changes going ahead without delivering AV can’t have fully struck the Labour party. Or if it has, and there isn’t alarm in the ranks, then there’s either complacency or incompetence somewhere.
Some research appeared to indicate AV might be beneficial to the Tories. I attach two links people might find interesting.
http://www.respublica.org.uk/blog/2010/05/why-conservatives-should-not-fear-av
http://www.respublica.org.uk/blog/2010/06/av-only-option-21st-century-conservatives
“more than a hasty return to the 2-party pendulum that guarantees absolute Tory power 2/3 of the time and Labour power for 1/3 of the time”
Small fact-ette. If the coalition runs its course there will have been 70 years since the end of WWII. The UK will have had roughly 35 years of Labour PMs and 35 years of Tory PMs. That figure only works because in the inter-war years the Tories saw their main opponent disintergrate and a new main opponent develop. Unsurprisingly they did well at that time!
@Alex M – I think both complacency and failure to look properly at the facts, if Neil Kinnock’s testimony is anything to go by. He wrote an article a few weeks ago where he described asking personal friends in the Labour party, e.g. Blunkett / Reid, why they were opposing AV so adamantly, and apparently they ‘gave him a knowing look and said “First Past the Post helps us”‘. Kinnock was bemused that they could misjudge the situation so badly, and I have to agree.
@Chris H – agree completely.
“or at least the Labour tribalists would have done if Labour’s strategy of spending a year attacking all things Lib Dem hadn’t caused every Lib Dem in Scotland to vote SNP, leading to a truly remarkable landslide for Alec Salmond.”
That is your analysis of the Holyrood election?! That the scottish losses/SNP victory were due to what Westminster Labour MPs did?
sigh, the road to recovery is going to be a long one!
This article was written just after the elecions, and since then Tim Montgomerie has posted a very detailed article at ConservativeHome on the AV saga, in which he describes how Cameron was visited by what I would call the “backwoodsmen” who convinced him that his leadership was under threat if the AV referendum was lost:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/avstory/
This is interesting, but the likelihood of the PM of the day being deposed over a change to the voting system is minuscule. The fact that Cameron didnt see this is a major indictment of his lack of courage in facing down the right of his party. Whereas Blair was constantly threatened by the left, he knew they could huff and puff and not dislodge him. Cameron is not the man that Blair was when it comes to leading his party from the centre by the scruff of its neck. That, sadly, is why I increasingly think his initial reforming vision with Clegg will fail.
“or at least the Labour tribalists would have done if Labour’s strategy of spending a year attacking all things Lib Dem hadn’t caused every Lib Dem in Scotland to vote SNP”
Do you not think being in coalition with the most hated party in Scotland may have a little to do with it, I have many Scottish friends from my time in the service and they to a man hated the Tories with a passion. Also worth pointing out that the Lib Dems have been pretty good at attacking all things Labour over the same period despite many on this blog warning it was a mistake..
“There is at least some symmetry in most of Labour’s MPs opposing AV even though it was in their 2010 manifesto, and then most Tory MPs opposing Lords reform despite it being in theirs.”
Labour’s manifesto promised a referendum, as they have always been (and probably always will be) split on voting reform anything more than this would not have been acceptable to at least half the candidates. They also promised to have a much more winnable referendum on Lords reform which was a mistake not to hold alongside AV.
@Alex M
“I do think that the full enormity of the consequences of the boundary changes going ahead without delivering AV can’t have fully struck the Labour party.”
Perhaps they feel they can bring the coalition down before the boundary changes come into force. This is the threat that Clegg can still use against the Tories. That would give them potentially 5 years to come up with a fair system rather than the ridiculous constraints this BIll placed on the commision.
Cameron has benfitted enormously by being in Coalition with the Lib Dems, decontaminating the Tory brand (whilst toxifying the Lib Dem brand). The old Tory brand failed to win the last 3 general elections after all. However his caving in to the Tory right may backfire. The old Tories failed because every leader they voted for; Hague, IDS and Howard were all Thatcherites – the nasty party. If he rides roughshod over the Lib Dems this image might return. Scottish independence on the other hand will help him and sink Labour.
I really cannot find much to agree with in this article.
“The Tory right became petrified that AV would lead to perpetually bland “One Nation” Tory policies and prevent a Thatcherite party winning power alone again.”
Well that in itself is an excellent reason for someone who dislikes coalition gov’t in general to oppose AV, even moreso for someone of a rightward disposition such as myself.
“a giant campaign by the Tories behind NO2AV to destroy his Deputy and the Lib Dems generally, knowing full well that this would lead to their slaughter at the polls.”
I believe you are conflating ENTIRELY unrelated factors if you believe that the Lib-Dem’s performance in the local elections was due to the No2AV campaign.
“As some have pointed out, this was unnecessary, as it looked like AV was going to be narrowly defeated anyway.”
This is politics, a process dependent on the tides of public opinion, why on earth would the [possibility] of a [narrow] victory suggest that a party which doesn;t like AV should kick back on open a cold beer?
“nothing at all – more than a hasty return to the 2-party pendulum that guarantees absolute Tory power 2/3 of the time and Labour power for 1/3 of the time”
This is what i will kindly brand as Huntbach syndrome, whereby AV was punished to box-in the Lib-Dem’s, and really represent a lack of ambition. The liberal creed is a powerful one, win with it under FPTP, that is the onlly option available.
“The future of the Coalition is no longer a vision of any kind, but merely a future of bitter marriage with the spouses staying together for the sake of the kids”
That is not the impression i get looking at the freedom bill, but then maybe i am an optimist in hoping that the Lib-Dem’s will see sense and return to being a party of individual liberty, albeit one with a ‘compassionate’ streak.
“Cameron was elected as PM on a platform of reform, but now appears to be the leading knight for the status quo.”
Hold on, governance is undergoing an absolutely massive reform and has been for every single day the coalition has been in power. Do you actually mean that its only producing reform you don’t approve of? Can you only be ‘progressive’ if you are the right sort of progressive?
“If Cameron sinks it – as opposed to just pushing it into the future to avoid the AV fall-out – it’s time to accept that we have been betrayed by a cabal of crypto-Thatcherites with a hidden agenda.”
IF……………..
“I have my fingers crossed for Nick and the coalition.”
As do I………. phew, some agreement was possible.
Three observations
1) As I understand it, the Labour vote in Scotland held up and were were treated to PR magnifying shifts and creating a one-party majority despite the Labour vote holding. Perhaps not the best advert for some of the effects the YES to AV campaign talked about . I make no value comment on Labour here, but just to say that the Salmond majority was at the expense of parties other than Labour.
2) As others have poined out, the Coalition Agreement does not promise HoL reform. What I expect will happen is that the Conservatives will sit back and watch Nick go into battle with 700 peers armed with nothing more substantial than a rolled up copy of the Independent.
3) ‘The Tory right, previously marginalised and outweighed by the Lib Dems, somehow forced their way back into the story.’ Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander were cheering, smiling and back-slapping after THAT budget. I think you will find that the Tory right have been runnng the show and somehow convinced the Lib Dem leadership they had been marginalised.
“What I expect will happen is that the Conservatives will sit back and watch Nick go into battle with 700 peers armed with nothing more substantial than a rolled up copy of the Independent.”
I am pretty sure Cameron does not want his equivalent of the stupid, ridiculous, cretinous fox-hunting debate.
@Cuse, ‘Labour-tribalists’ is being used to distinguish them from the significant elements of the Labour party that are not tribal.
It describes an element of the Labour party that is willing to go to any lengths to attack the Lib Dems even to the extent that this may harm Labour’s longer term prospects.
Surely that is Ex- “Cabinet member for Efficiency and Value for Money on Bristol City Council” now that your Lib Dem colleagues in Bristol have dumped you?
Hi Joe, yes that’s sadly correct. It was true at the time of writing, and technically it’s true until the Council AGM tomorrow. Off to the job-centre for me…
A bit of understandable revisionism going on methinks. Not an analysis I can agree with though.
For a start I don’t accept that Cameron is fundamentally different from the Tory right. I’ll give you that he, or his advisors, had the foresight to prepare for a hung parliament much more thoroughly than anyone else.
I don’t have any particular insight into the mind of the PM but I’ve witnessed nothing that makes me think Cameron fancied perpetual coalition any more than Hague, Osborne et al. I believe he had thought through the implications of coalition and was quick to see how not having a parliamentary majority could be turned into a political advantage.
New politics-smoo politics.
There is a difference here. When Liberal Democrats moderate the Conservatives, I think they are talking about the discriminatory, get Britain out of Europe, bring back corporal punishment Conservatives. Unfortunately the electorate wanted moderating the Thatcherite, small state, privatise everything, private is good, public is dogmatic Conservatives.
To the shock and dismay of the electorate, it was discovered that the Orange Book Leadership of Clegg and Alexander has taken over the Liberal Democrats and have remarkably similar views on these issues to Cameron.
This is why I am concerned that the Liberal Democratic party leadership will not stop the NHS bill. This will do irreperable and unforgiveable damage to the organisation.
The Liberal Democrats, with particular regard to AV (and the NHS), remind me of the frog giving the lift to the Conservative scorpion across a stream. Half way across the scorpion stings the frog, meaning that the frog and the scorpion drown. ‘Why did you sting me ? We will both drown. The scorpion replies, well what do you expect I am a scorpion that’s what I do.
This coalition is not going to have a happy end for the Liberal Democrats.